Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Hi Ron,
I'll ask you some questions to get you thinking -- and because I'm a bit lazy in that I don't want to dig for all the stuff right now. What was said by other people of Ueshiba's sword work? Why? Just where did he learn sword? Wasn't there some mention that Ueshiba was good with a sword in either hand? Does that relate to what was said about someone else?

The short answer -- Ueshiba was good with a sword because of what Takeda taught him. Now, who under Ueshiba was good with a sword because of what Ueshiba taught him/her?

Hi Ron,
I'll ask you some questions to get you thinking -- and because I'm a bit lazy in that I don't want to dig for all the stuff right now. What was said by other people of Ueshiba's sword work? Why? Just where did he learn sword? Wasn't there some mention that Ueshiba was good with a sword in either hand? Does that relate to what was said about someone else?

The short answer -- Ueshiba was good with a sword because of what Takeda taught him. Now, who under Ueshiba was good with a sword because of what Ueshiba taught him/her?

And Sagawa with a jo or sword or spear and Kodo and Ueshiba too. Interesting was the mention of both Takeda and Ueshiba using a sword single handed and the suggestion both might have been left handed in a coutry with no left handed people
Anyway, my argument is a bit narrow by choice. No one taught everyone everything. I meant it in a somewhat looser vien. I think it is fair to say Takeda and his methods made Budo greats who were acknowledged as giants in the arts. Ueshiba made no giants who are equal to the stunning power of those men. Shioda was a later anomaly, a product of DR, out and about performing known kodokai body tricks he became famous for-straight out of the box.

And as for teaching what they knew. Here is another quandry. I recently talked with a someone in Japan in a branch of DR who stated that his teacher went to Tokimune to learn. Tokimune showed him- solo exercises, telling him they were the source of his aiki. When the teacher brought them back to his dojo- no one wanted to do them, they wanted to do techniques. When he later asked Tokimune about that, Tokimune said "No one here wants to do them either. I've shown some people, but they would rather do techniques too."
Then we have another well known teacher out and about who "had these things in his art" Who clearly knows about them, and can talk about them, but who clearly has never spent time really training them. His body and lack of internal skill make it obvious that he never spent enough time on them. Fortunately, he is meeting a new class of educated seminar attendees, who are making it known to him that "He needs work."
So where can we fairly say "Bad teacher," when the teacher tried. In some cased maybe we should be quoting a "Georgia Rule" For a smart person (student), you're really good at stupid.

What can be said; some show, some don't show, some don't even know. Some are then shown, and they go right back to doing what they know and feel comfortable with. Best to focus on our own work and people who are interested in learning this work.
Cheers
Dan

What was said by other people of Ueshiba's sword work? Why? Just where did he learn sword? Wasn't there some mention that Ueshiba was good with a sword in either hand? Does that relate to what was said about someone else?

The short answer -- Ueshiba was good with a sword because of what Takeda taught him. Now, who under Ueshiba was good with a sword because of what Ueshiba taught him/her?

Umm... WHAT????

To me, this "answer one's own question" as a way of making an authoritative statement simply smacks of "bush-era" logic, whereby, umm... no actual evidence or even logic is cited or used at all, 'cept the one that makes sense to the person making the claim in the first place. I mean, it sounds good to everyone who agrees with the premise up front, but when examined it appears to have so many holes in it that crediting its ability to hold water as compared to say, Swiss cheese, would be a challenge at best.

Perhaps before posting to a website known for its' unabashed Aikido leanings, unabashed, Takeda-thumping, Daito-Ryu members, in an effort to make themselves appear more "fair and balanced, should openly acknowledge that one of the main reasons anyone outside of Japan trains in, or even knows about Daito-Ryu is because of the world-wide popularity of Aikido. Perhaps they should be forced to take a blood-oath, just to keep that old-school feeling, acknowledging that fact when applying for membership. This way that fact could be left out of each post so that we will all know they mean aikido... the bastardized, mother-less version of their own-art. Or more simply, that "modern-day" nemesis brought about by that - no first name, no Sensei title, nor any honorary mention that he is the founder of an art form, needed, shifty-eyed "Ueshiba" guy who is well documented to have

had no original ideas

had no real sword (or other weapon) abilities

just limited the syllabus of the real art from which is came.

just changed the art's name so he didn't have to pay his "under-acknowledged" teacher

if he really knew anything, never shared what he knew

didn't really have a systematized method

blathered on and on and on and on... about useless, spiritual, umm... blatherings

...etc, etc, etc, etc...

Like them, I could really go on and on here, but I will take a pass, instead. I do this out of hopes that someday, it will be more readily acknowledged by them that regardless of any ability, lineage, or weather they be a proponent of gendai or koryu school of budo, that simply speaking... how history comes forward has more to do with popularity than anything else. People tend to try and forget those they don't like and tend to share from the heart about those they do like.

Now I am not going to make any backhanded character references about Sokaku Takeda Shihan - see, I didn't meet him directly - but I will speak of my own impression (FWIW) of how he might have been based upon the stories I have heard/read. That is to say, he wasn't liked at all - even by his own students. Even the pictures of him seem to be off-putting at best, an image I might go as far to state he, himself cultivated and desired others to have of him. Accordingly I won't make any definitive statements about O-Sensei - having not met him either - except to say that people talk of him having created a budo of love and compassion and that and he liked to smile and laugh a lot. He did this all while he was a life-long martial artist which might attest to his ability to foster a balanced life at least from an outsider's perspective.

So who is more apt to be remembered fondly long-term and how does this apply to our own training, on a personal level, today? Well, "I" really can't say. You can do the math. However, employing a higher level of logic may speak better towards the validity of any results worthy of any public mention or comment, at least in this forum that is, than has been exemplified so far by our friends and partners of other martial arts, here visiting these forums.

Of course, my post is mostly tongue-in-cheek in nature. It most certainly does try to represent any one non-aikido person to any real depth. As I and others have noted, attitudes and practices have marched markedly forward in the last decade. So with that... old-school Shaun goes back into the dojo for further meditation. New-improved, gendai Shaun is off to the gym - its legs and core day... and to further reflect on his actions and how they may or may not be remembered, even as soon as tomorrow...

Best in training to all...

.

Last edited by Misogi-no-Gyo : 05-29-2009 at 04:44 PM.

I no longer participate in or read the discussion forums here on AikiWeb due to the unfair and uneven treatment of people by the owner/administrator.

To me, this "answer one's own question" as a way of making an authoritative statement simply smacks of "bush-era" logic, whereby, umm... no actual evidence or even logic is cited or used at all, 'cept the one that makes sense to the person making the claim in the first place. I mean, it sounds good to everyone who agrees with the premise up front, but when examined it appears to have so many holes in it that crediting its ability to hold water as compared to say, Swiss cheese, would be a challenge at best.

Well, I guess if you can come up with any research or evidence, I would certainly look at it. Or if you could detail the holes, considering you see that many. I'm sure that others would be interested, too.

Quote:

Shaun Ravens wrote:

Perhaps before posting to a website known for its' unabashed Aikido leanings, unabashed, Takeda-thumping, Daito-Ryu members, in an effort to make themselves appear more "fair and balanced, should openly acknowledge that one of the main reasons anyone outside of Japan trains in, or even knows about Daito-Ryu is because of the world-wide popularity of Aikido. Perhaps they should be forced to take a blood-oath, just to keep that old-school feeling, acknowledging that fact when applying for membership. This way that fact could be left out of each post so that we will all know they mean aikido... the bastardized, mother-less version of their own-art. Or more simply, that "modern-day" nemesis brought about by that - no first name, no Sensei title, nor any honorary mention that he is the founder of an art form, needed, shifty-eyed "Ueshiba" guy who is well documented to have

had no original ideas

had no real sword (or other weapon) abilities

just limited the syllabus of the real art from which is came.

just changed the art's name so he didn't have to pay his "under-acknowledged" teacher

if he really knew anything, never shared what he knew

didn't really have a systematized method

blathered on and on and on and on... about useless, spiritual, umm... blatherings

...etc, etc, etc, etc...

I'm not really sure where this came from. Personally, I really admire Ueshiba and what he did. I think he took what he had learned in a completely new direction. I think he knew a whole lot more than he "taught". I love aikido.

But, the fact remains that Daito ryu was Ueshiba's main and largest martial influence. That Ueshiba can still be seen to be doing Daito ryu techniques even into his old age. That he trimmed Daito ryu techniques (as I said before, that isn't a bad thing). Those are facts.

What has been debated is Daito ryu aiki. But, anyone doing research has found there really is no debate to that. It doesn't detract from Ueshiba, his abiliies, or what he accomplished at all. Ueshiba still stands among the preeminent Budo men of his era. He is that because of his martial abilities *and* his spiritual nature. His martial abilities were Daito ryu aiki at the core. Most would say his spiritual nature was from Omoto kyo and Deguchi.

Ueshiba stood out. Kendo men wanted to train with him. Kano respected him. All of his students respected him. Yet, none of them stated that it was his spiritual nature. No, that doesn't diminish that aspect of him, but it is without a doubt his martial abilities, the Daito ryu aiki, that gave him a base to spread his message of his Aikido.

Well, I dunno. Given the number of "Ueshiba had nothing because he got it all from Takeda" posts I've seen some people focus on, the "I don't know where this came from" argument seems a bit disingenuous.

I could make the argument that the Aikido techniques I've seen in Aikido simply represent variations of widely known Chinese techniques because that's true. However, I could not only say that of a lot of Japanese m.a. techniques, I could also say the same bascially trivializing comments about most modern-day Chinese m.a. techniques. Why don't we drop the anti-Ueshiba stuff and just appreciate it for what it is, what it does, what its body-technology is, and so forth. There's really no need for this "Ueshiba was a poor take-off on Takeda" stuff. If we're talking about Ueshiba's techniques (like the "ukemi" mentioned in the header) let's examine it.

If we're going to say that Ueshiba's technique (and Takeda's) came from somewhere else, let's be fair and trivialize all equally. Most of all, let's be even-handed in our analyses.

Ueshiba stood out. Kendo men wanted to train with him. Kano respected him. All of his students respected him. Yet, none of them stated that it was his spiritual nature. No, that doesn't diminish that aspect of him, but it is without a doubt his martial abilities, the Daito ryu aiki, that gave him a base to spread his message of his Aikido.

Shoji Nishio stated that he trained under Uesh because he found his morality superior to Mifune Kyuzo's (the great Judo player).

The article is over on Aikido Journal somewhere.

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

And as for teaching what they knew. Here is another quandry. I recently talked with a someone in Japan in a branch of DR who stated that his teacher went to Tokimune to learn. Tokimune showed him- solo exercises, telling him they were the source of his aiki. When the teacher brought them back to his dojo- no one wanted to do them, they wanted to do techniques. When he later asked Tokimune about that, Tokimune said "No one here wants to do them either. I've shown some people, but they would rather do techniques too."
Then we have another well known teacher out and about who "had these things in his art" Who clearly knows about them, and can talk about them, but who clearly has never spent time really training them. His body and lack of internal skill make it obvious that he never spent enough time on them. Fortunately, he is meeting a new class of educated seminar attendees, who are making it known to him that "He needs work."
So where can we fairly say "Bad teacher," when the teacher tried. In some cased maybe we should be quoting a "Georgia Rule" For a smart person (student), you're really good at stupid.

What can be said; some show, some don't show, some don't even know. Some are then shown, and they go right back to doing what they know and feel comfortable with. Best to focus on our own work and people who are interested in learning this work.
Cheers
Dan

I don't know which DR teacher you are referring to, but Sano, a Shihan under Tokimune, demonstrates excercises for developing Aiki (which he says were shown to him by Tokimune) on one of the videos published by the Abashiri group about ten years ago. Very interesting stuff.

Well, I dunno. Given the number of "Ueshiba had nothing because he got it all from Takeda" posts I've seen some people focus on, the "I don't know where this came from" argument seems a bit disingenuous.

I think if anyone rereads any of the posts, they'll find that we've said that aikido is great, a preeminent martial art, etc, etc, etc. No one has ever said, "had no original ideas", in fact the opposite was posted. Ueshiba did something unique in the budo world at that time. No one has said, "had no real sword (or other weapon) abilities". In fact, the opposite was said. It's a known fact that Ueshiba did trim the Daito ryu syllabus and that he never really systematically taught techniques. It's also documented that many of his students didn't understand him when he talked about the spiritual side of things. But, what have some of us posted? Hey, those things he was saying kind of make sense when training aiki. No one ever talked about Ueshiba naming the art "aikido" to skip out on paying someone. In fact, Ueshiba never really named his art, now did he? He accepted that name, but it came from somewhere else.

Disingenuous? Not really. Just like before when the world hardly knew that there even was a Daito ryu because it was covered up, it's now starting to be known that what powered Ueshiba's martial abilities was Daito ryu aiki. Still, that doesn't detract from what Ueshiba did, nor his spiritual message.

Just like before when the world hardly knew that there even was a Daito ryu because it was covered up,

Mark, agreed with everything else you write, but you and others who write about a conspiracy, a cover up, are absolutely wrong. Cut it out! Jeez. Just because it wasn't talked about in some aikido dojo in x-town, American, doesn't mean there's a cover-up. There's just no interest that far from the center.
When I went to Japan in 1976, I asked about Daito-ryu (I'd read about it in ALL the forwards of all the the aikido books I'd read - sure, there were some not so nice things written about Takeda, but the gist was there) and I was told where to find it, who taught it, etc. It was common knowledge. That aikido people weren't interested in it is quite understandable, really. Have you ever seen a DR demo in Japan? They don't demo the "aiki" stuff - they mostly do a rather stiff, mannered, often lumpish jujutsu. From what is presented publicly, there has been little to tempt an aikidoka - because the DR people have been covering up their own stuff! They weren't showing anything interesting. If they had, I would have joined in a heartbeat. I didn't know it existed - not from what they were presenting.

BTW - Takeda Sokaku never spoke about or gave credit to the jujutsu-ryu that Daito-ryu came from (Ahem - release in July, due to hold up on design and finding an inexpensive enough printing company). Well, to be fair, he may not have known - OR - he simply felt that he'd made enough changes that he would call it by its own name - which, like Ueshiba, he decided upon.

Sometimes these discussions remind me of a family get-together where an aunt with a strident voice is heard over the various discussions, "Well, Arnold, your son does have a beautiful punin (face), but you know that comes from our side of the family. Just because he has your last name doesn't mean you can take credit for those fantastic genes. With what you've got going on in your family tree, he's lucky he tends to our side."

Mark, agreed with everything else you write, but you and others who write about a conspiracy, a cover up, are absolutely wrong. Cut it out! Jeez. Just because it wasn't talked about in some aikido dojo in x-town, American, doesn't mean there's a cover-up. …..When I went to Japan in 1976, I asked about Daito-ryu (I'd read about it in ALL the forwards of all the the aikido books I'd read - sure, there were some not so nice things written about Takeda, but the gist was there) and I was told where to find it, who taught it, etc. It was common knowledge.

Hello Ellis
Interesting post.
I remain unclear where you might have read about a conspiracy happening in Japan? To my knowledge and awareness, on this subject in printed form in English and on the internet I have only seen it referenced specifically in regard to mediums and people outside of Japan. Even Tokimune's in-house newsletter differentiated that-wherein he discusses how the art was being downplayed…abroad. Indirectly referencing the aikikai and foreign authors.
That said, I also found it curious you dismissed the anecdotal offering as you did in being gliipant about who cares "what some teacher said in X-town USA." Again, if memory serves, those quotes have come from Americans talking with visiting Japanese Aikido teachers, including Shihan.
It is a bit unsettling to see you dismiss anecdotal evidence and then segua to your anectodotal evidence."When I went to Japan in 1976, I asked about Daito-ryu .....I was told where to find it, who taught it, etc. It was common knowledge"
I'm sure you agree your anecdotes with teachers in Japan are no more, no less credible than the experience of other men outside of Japan, so I think we are talking about two different experiences on either sides of the world. So, you my friend, have once again made the case that for -some folks- there indeed had been two different answers given the DR connection "from back in the day"; one in Japan and one for foreign consumption. I know because in 1980's I was actively looking for it, only to be told it no longer existed by?….a Japanese Aikido Shihan. Curiously this situation (about disinformation) you yourself have acknowledged in regards to other topics in the past. I think it proves true here as well.
I still firmly believe that situation and the subsequent growth in awareness and clarity of the DR connection was due to Stan's efforts to an English speaking world. I know I was grateful when I first called Stan in Japan, only to find out that the visiting Japanese teacher was either lying to our faces or was ignorant of your anecdotal experiences of; "being told where to find it, who taught it," and that; "It was common knowledge" known everywhere in Japan! We sure as hell didn't.
Have some pity on us poor non-Japanese speaking guys training in aikido before the internet. There were limiting sources for information back then!
Perhaps you can see my point? I think it's something worth considering.

Quote:

BTW - Takeda Sokaku never spoke about or gave credit to the jujutsu-ryu that Daito-ryu came from (Ahem - release in July, due to hold up on design and finding an inexpensive enough printing company). Well, to be fair, he may not have known - OR - he simply felt that he'd made enough changes that he would call it by its own name - which, like Ueshiba, he decided upon.

History
It's fair to say that most everyone involved in the MA, particularly with Koryu, has been obsessed with the history as much as real skill. It's fair to say, that it's usually among the first questions asked from most anyone-even about Aikido and Ueshiba. I make no judgments of it, but it seems to be always out there for discussion. This of course bears witness in your own need for discovery caring about Ueshiba's power being connected to DR, to the point that you yourself chose to pursue the connection and then pursue it further to even suggest a new speculative and provocative alternate history of Takeda's own claims about the origin of DR. Were it proved true it would basically state he was lying or downplaying its origins or is own involvement in disseminating that information. Was this mention, an intentional corollary to Ueshiba? I bring that up since it appears-I'm guessing here- that your intent is to let each of these men stand on their own two feet and be done with it! Well, okay. It's certainly a new approach.

I appreciate the joke about genealogy and another aunt story, but in my reading of things I see no intent to disparage Ueshiba to lift another. In fact, it seems the recent years here have boosted an awareness of just how good he was all the more.
As far as his skill, what's the inverse to the aunt story?
To watch Ueshiba and to sit idly by and say. "What an amazing man! What interesting and totally individual movement, the likes of which has never been seen or heard of before on the earth." ..like everyone else has been doing for years. And then to deny knowing what you are looking at and how to train to actually get it? I chose a different route. To speak up about it. For better or worse. Hey, I never said I was perfect!
So, I discuss Ueshiba in concert with DR only in regards to where he got his physical skills-not his spiritual leanings or where he went with it-there I tend to clearly differentiate and have noted differences I happen to like, so I think there is a strong balance of view regarding where it came from and where he went with it.
Case in point:
It might be worth noting I have taken great pains to discuss and offer opinion on just how the DR training and its end goals was modified to arrive at the aikido type ukemi seen so often in aikido. And more pointedly that although Takeda changed and modified the more typically seen koryu model…it was not exactly in ways typically thought. In many ways he was still uke just not in the way most see it or understand it.
Not without merit I will note you remain the only person to have seen it too and capable of conversing on that topic in these pages.
This of course does not address Ueshiba's spiritual massage, nor do I intend to other than to say in many ways I remain a fan of what he at least tried to accomplish in creating Aikido and taking his art in a different direction.

Well, I dunno. Given the number of "Ueshiba had nothing because he got it all from Takeda" posts I've seen some people focus on, the "I don't know where this came from" argument seems a bit disingenuous.

"Ueshiba had nothing?" This is nonsense and never happened here that I have seen. You are confusing the questions:1. It has only ever been a debate of where he got it and how he did it.
2. Not if he had it.
As for Ueshiba and accuracy
Mike. You-are at the top of the list for continually trying to first claim he got it from some mysterious common knowldge in Asian arts idea, then morhing to Koryu and amalgum of his supposed training idea, then later agreed to the possibility he "added" things on top of his DR training to explain his power. You did it over and over. All without knowing anything about what you were talking about by way of DR and what that might have produced IN HIM in the first place. At one point going so fare as stating there MUST have been more, and looking for Chinese and Omoto influenced solo training. Back then the level of discourse reminded me of BKF and his comment that "Ueshiba must have studied bagua in China" theories because he saw something in his moves-he- recognized.
Of course it was tough for you to talk about what might have been added when you didn't know what was there to begin with, even to denying / challenging that there was anything substantive regarding internals in DR to even have gotten! All of which you later apologized for (including several other apologies for not including Koryu) in these very pages.
No harm no foul, I applaud the honesty and the research mentalitiy behind it, but at the end of the day, none of this has been any surprise to me and a few others. I have been advocating for it from the beginning. All cited in several hundred posts.
You might choose to say others are downplaying Ueshiba's power, but it doesnlt hold up. I think you are making too strong a statement. And to aim it at Mark is a bit much.
If you really want to go there...Mark has produced quite a bit of Aikido video links showing where Ueshiba's power was being demonstrated and placing it here for discussion-Far more than any one single person I have ever seen. All with the intention to prove Ueshiba's power and forward the discussions it seems you were once so intent on having in the first place. He also contributed to the discussion of Ueshiba taking Ukemi as Nage in a way you have not.

On review, I think you are the only one (or one of the few) to have placed DR videos on aikiweb to discuss them.
Cheers
Dan

Mike. You-are at the top of the list for continually trying to first claim he got it from some mysterious common knowldge in Asian arts idea, then morhing to Koryu and amalgum of his supposed training idea, then later agreed to the possibility he "added" things on top of his DR training to explain his power. You did it over and over.

Actually, that's not true. What I offered was the idea that while Ueshiba *may* have gotten some of the higher-level training from Takeda, some of it *may* have been from other sources, so it's hard to pinpoint, despite your many posts attributing all of Ueshiba's skills to Takeda.

The one thing I've said time and time again if that you need to cite your sources when you attribute comments to me because you have made too many incorrect attributions in the past. Please remember to cite when you say I've said something. Saying "all cited in several hundred posts" is sort of a joke, BTW.

More closely to the thread topic, my point is sort of in line with Ellis' comment noting that Takeda didn't attribute his skills to the people that taught him and it would seem a little odd if someone kept popping up on a DR forum insisting that Takeda would have had nothing if it hadn't been for so-and-so's training. The point is that these constant harking-backs to Takeda are sort of bizarre and they've gone on for years now.

Why not just leave it that these skills are found throughout Asia, as a generality, and then discuss some of the different emphases Ueshiba did without constantly dragging Takeda's name into it? Just a thought.

Actually, that's not true. What I offered was the idea that while Ueshiba *may* have gotten some of the higher-level training from Takeda, some of it *may* have been from other sources, so it's hard to pinpoint, despite your many posts attributing all of Ueshiba's skills to Takeda.

No, actually I am correct, and its all there if someone goes back more than a few years to watch the changing of your position in writing.. If you are trying to state that your position has not changed-go right ahead.
I don't really care enough to go pull your post again. When people have pulled your posts in the past, you arrive at a different conclusion to them everytime, and point the confusion to others. I am content to just watch you revise your views as long as the information is correct. I have revised my own in the past several times. On my part in regards to the Chinese arts. It's not a negative in my view, its a positive, a part of learning. I'll be the first to admit it.

Quote:

More closely to the thread topic, my point is sort of in line with Ellis' comment noting that Takeda didn't attribute his skills to the people that taught him and it would seem a little odd if someone kept popping up on a DR forum insisting that Takeda would have had nothing if it hadn't been for so-and-so's training. The point is that these constant harking-backs to Takeda are sort of bizarre and they've gone on for years now.

Again, history and lineage is stridently important to the majority of people in budo-always has been. Read any book, look at any interview. Many have written books about lineage and connections beetween diverse Koryu and their influences down through the ages and the affect it had on the later arts. Some have publications pending about that very thing, and are even relying on interest IN THAT VERY IDEA for success. I think its interesting, and since some like to continually point out the common skills shared by all Asian arts, then that in itself draws interest to "connections."
On the whole I can agree with your point, Mike, I just think you are making too strong a statement as it applies here.

Quote:

Why not just leave it that these skills are found throughout Asia, as a generality, and then discuss some of the different emphases Ueshiba did without constantly dragging Takeda's name into it? Just a thought.

These skills are not all the same, only the very basic ones are the same. From there, the way to train them is different, and their use is markedly different. Even between schools of ICMA and schools of JMA.
That's all I am going to say on that. It's not what the threads about.
Cheers
Dan

No, actually I am correct, and its all there if someone goes back more than a few years to watch the changing of your position in writing.. If you are trying to state that your position has not changed-go right ahead.

Dan, this is about the fourth or fifth time. *Anytime* you definitively attribute that I said something, please put the citation. In the past, my position has never been any more than that *some* of Ueshiba's stuff may have come from sources other than Takeda. The only shift I've made is that actually "aiki" (apparently "aiki" as you use it is slightly different from the traditional usage, so I'm using it in the traditional sense) seems more certainly to have come from Takeda himself simply for the reason that I can see one of Takeda's students using it (and bear in mind, that's not definitive in itself). I still leave it open because I don't know (and you don't know) if the supplemental training methodologies came from Takeda or not. There is still a strong possibility that some of the supplemental training came from another discipline (for Ueshiba's Aikido). Given that Ueshiba uses such strong Shintoism in his supplemental practice methods, it's a reasonable and open question about whether he got some of the supplemental training practices through Omoto Kyo.